A technical point: it’s arguable to say that the founding fathers designed the Supreme Court to work as it is today, because the constitution doesn’t actually provide for any checks and balances at all in terms of the SC having the power to check the Congress or President. They gave themselves that power in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, by which James Madison (obviously) and Thomas Jefferson (current President, also obvious) as well were both opposed to the S.C. having that power (two very important Founders indeed). Jefferson had argued that to give the courts such power would effectively create an oligarchy because they could just do whatever they wanted without consequence. When the decision was rendered, Jefferson had to choose either to go with the decision or send in troops to literally dissolve the S.C., since he considered the SC to be usurping constitutional powers and had the authority (and duty) as Executive to use military force to uphold the constitution and laws with troops. And, the structure of the SC was constitutionally up to congress anyway, so they could legally just reshape it to make a new one. In the end, he opted to honor the decision, and most Americans are comfortable with this today. However, even though the courts generally use their power only to make appropriate decisions, many times in history the SC has used judicial activism anyway. Even if you don’t think that recent decisions on eminent domain or separation of church and state (a judicial term, not a constitutional one) are activist, you have to agree that certain post civil war era decisions were based soley on racism and had to be later overturned.

Ok well I said way more than I wanted, but my point is that the SC today is most likely not as how the Founders envisioned it as a whole, but they may not necessarily be opposed to its current role in goverment.

That is the important key. As we have witnessed in the past 4.x years, powerful and terrible things happen when Government works together and gets along. Many people say that if government is constantly bickering and fighting with itself, change takes too long to happen. I say, “Asolutely!” That is the best way for government to function! Without debate (the result of sides being pissed at each other), proposals and bills are never fully thought through before being brought to a vote; example: Patriot Act.